Why do I feel so much anxiety when it comes to gay marriage?

[McMatt]

I use this as an example to try to show I am not hateful but just caring, but caring for Children over adults.
Try this; little Holly has just been orphaned because her mummy and daddy has died in a tragic accident, so sad, she has no relatives so is to be adopted and you must choose which is the best family for her.
Your options-

1. Two of the best dads in the world.
2. Two of the best mums in the world.
3. One of the best mums in the world and one of the best dads in the world.

Choose please.

All I have done is level the playing field, so we have removed everything except the facts.

For a child in the adoption system:

1. Two of the best dads in the world, or
2. Two of the best mums in the world, or
3. One of the best mums in the world and one of the best dads in the world.

All of these are equally fine. That was THE most unintelligent argument I have ever seen. Or do you simply not realize the fact that the world isn't as simple as point A) or point B)?

 

[crimsonleaf]

I use this as an example to try to show I am not hateful but just caring, but caring for Children over adults.
Try this; little Holly has just been orphaned because her mummy and daddy has died in a tragic accident, so sad, she has no relatives so is to be adopted and you must choose which is the best family for her.
Your options-

1. Two of the best dads in the world.
2. Two of the best mums in the world.
3. One of the best mums in the world and one of the best dads in the world.

Choose please.

All I have done is level the playing field, so we have removed everything except the facts.

Option three is the best option, given a choice.

Although people will jump up and say there's nothing wrong with same-sex parenting, no one can honestly say "there's everything right" with it.

A well-rounded child is the product of input from two sexes. I'm guessing that's why God made it that way.

 

[USCGrad90]

I have seen the pro gay marriage movement stating that we are wrong and evil in our beliefs to oppose it and some have compared our opposition to the people who opposed desegregation. I think a big part of my anxiety comes in that for as many sound logical arguments I may have for opposing gay marriage, people on the opposite side of the issue dismiss those arguments as lack of being open minded or hateful of others. I honestly don't hate anyone, I simply disagree with their choices, just as I disagree with premarital sex in a heterosexual relationship, adultery, inappropriate contentography, etc... Our society is stressing that there are no absolute laws and challenge openely that our belief in God is a form of mythology. This challenge is one you can't sit on the sidelines about, because ultimately it challenges our right to believe that there is a God and ultimately the basics of what is right and wrong.

 

[USCGrad90]

I am a gay man. And I can tell you that I never had to sit down and make a choice to be gay, just like I am sure that you never chose to be straight. And for the record, I hope that one day I can be married as well. But married to the MAN I love.

I have made choices on how I acted on my attractions to girls and women in my life and to my wife of 20 years, but you are correct in saying I never made a concious choice to be straight. I can't judge your decisions or relate to an attraction to someone of the same gender, but I can just say that I personally believe that God designed marriage to be between a man and woman and not people of the same gender. My reasons for this belief include justification based on my religious background, my family background and examples, and reasoning that the design of men and women for procreation supports this belief. I have friends who are gay, friends who have divorced, and friends who have committed adultery - all of which I consider to be actions not in keeping with God's will. I don't consider myself better than any of them, because I have sin in my life, but if we ever discussed our choices I would try to be honest about how I feel about marriage and sexuality without hurtiing their feelings or destroying our friendship.

 

[Albion]

I am a gay man. And I can tell you that I never had to sit down and make a choice to be gay

Which isn't what he said. You do have to make a choice whether to engage in any sexual relations or not, don't you?

 

[Albion]

I am a virgin. That just means I won't sleep with any guy that crosses my path. I'm saving myself, but only until I feel the time is right. I can say without doubt that marriage will not affect who I will spend my life with. Even without it, I will stay with him until death do we part.

Many Christian heterosexual men and women do not see the logic in the argument that gays can sleep with anyone they choose--because they were made that way--while the straights are forbidden under pain of sin from doing the same thing outside marriage. You can appreciate their thinking, I assume.

 

[softspokenLamb]

You feel this anxiety because homosexuality in the world today is in a perplexing place. There will always be Sodom's and Gomorrah's in the world, but they have never been in such a strong political position before.
If you've been raised to believe something is wrong, then it's only natural to feel unsettled when you have to hear a constant stream of new voices saying that it isn't wrong. The fact that you feel such anxiety over it is a good thing. It's the side of you that wants to obey God's original design for sex, marriage, and the family. Hold to that conviction and never let go! Don't let what the world tells you influence your thinking, or guilt you into supporting what you know in your heart is wrong. Reach for God, and He will reach for you!

 

[RDKirk]

I don't feel anxiety about this issue. Homosexual relationships are sinful, and marriage by Biblical definition is exclusively between a man and a woman for life. I don't see a reason to be anxious about that. Sinners are going to do what sinners do. As long as we represent Christ well and retain our freedom, we'll be fine.

This is correct. Sinners are going to sin. It's what they do--scripture tells us in both Romans and Hebrews that unbelievers can't do anything else but sin.

As has been mentioned, Romans 1 shows us which way the world is headed, and Jesus had already said that Christians would always be a despised minority in this world, repeated by Peter. When Peter says that the stone rejected by human builders would become the cornerstone and capstone of an entire house of uncut stones...that meant the entire house would be rejected as well.

When Peter says, "In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you," did you think his "you" did not include you?

This isn't anything new. Although as time passes, the total content of evil in the world increases and will increase until Christ returns, don't think that anyplace of the world has ever been righteous.

Ever read Amos? God condemns the nations of the world for their crimes against humanity, not against breaking any specific laws. The fact is, all nations of this world have practiced crimes against humanity, because it's by the sword that nations gain and maintain wealth and power in this fallen world...and the USA is not any exception to that. The wealth and power of the US was also gained by the sword.

All who live by the sword will die by the sword." Jesus ain't never lied.

 

[RDKirk]

Does it even matter? You cannot change the fact that the US is a secular nation. God deemed the whole world secular. Why impose our beliefs on others when god clearly gave man free will. For you to try and take away that free will you are stepping in where you don't belong.

Yes.

But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. -- 1 Peter 4.

Now, what does "meddler" mean? The Greek word translated as "meddler" denotes a person who sets himself up as an overseer of someone he has no authority to oversee.

Do Christians individually or the Church in general have the authority to oversee those outside the Church?

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? God will judge those outside. You judge those inside. -- 1 Corinthians 5

 

[sickntired771]

I don't support "gender-neutral" marriage, because the Bible clearly says that marriage is a holy constitution between a man and a woman. Then, when I'm under pressure by reading texts about how the Bible is wrong and listen to people complaining to me about how homosexuals should have the right to marriage, I get anxiety. I have nothing against homosexuals, referring to the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment, but I just can't accept them getting married...

I don't understand why I feel so much pressure in my heart about this.

Does it bring up a subject for you that makes you uncomfortable. Are you questioning or struggling with your own sexuality? Whether one is for marriage equality or adhere to the view that marriage between a man/woman only, someone elses marriage really has no bearing or impact on your life. It shouldn't cause you anxiety, it just isn't your life.

 

[imind]

listen their wrong. it is even scienctifically proven that there is no gay/bi/lesbian gene. so none of that makes since when they say there born that way and that we aren't scientifically minded.

so when did you choose to become heterosexual?
the absence of a gay gene does not mean they choose to be gay or weren't born that way.

 

[RDKirk]

Gays have to go both ways; they have to assert that it's both natural and that it's a choice.

It must be considered a choice, because if it's natural, then it has a natural cause that can conceivably be treated medically, and if not treated, then discovered in utero and aborted.

But it's also got to be asserted as natural, because if it's a choice, then it's subject to moral judgment and debate.

They need to have it both ways.

 

[Resha Caner]

It must be considered a choice, because if it's natural, then it has a natural cause that can conceivably be treated medically, and if not treated, then discovered in utero and aborted.

But it's also got to be asserted as natural, because if it's a choice, then it's subject to moral judgment and debate.

Most interesting.

 

[sickntired771]

Gays have to go both ways; they have to assert that it's both natural and that it's a choice.

It must be considered a choice, because if it's natural, then it has a natural cause that can conceivably be treated medically, and if not treated, then discovered in utero and aborted.

But it's also got to be asserted as natural, because if it's a choice, then it's subject to moral judgment and debate.

They need to have it both ways.

This same "logic" can be applied to heteros.

 

[RDKirk]

This same "logic" can be applied to heteros.

And heteros say so without issue. Yes, hetero behavior is natural, and yes hetero behavior is a matter of moral choice.

 

[Resha Caner]

And heteros say so without issue. Yes, hetero behavior is natural, and yes hetero behavior is a matter of moral choice.

Could you elaborate why this is an issue for one but not the other?

 

[actionsub]

You are right to have added that. They insist that we accept their standards of morality, and if we do nothing other than say we do not agree--we are deemed "haters." Next, watch for the drive to make disagreement "hate speech" punishable in law.

This is the facet of the whole marriage equality issue that causes me anxiety. If two people of the same gender want to have a formal declaration of vows to create a union in order to control property issues, etc. after the death of one of the partners, I'm fine with that. What I don't want is, as one studying for the ministry, is to be put in a legal context where I have to bless such a union or be brought up on civil and/or ecclesiastical charges.

 

[RDKirk]

This is the facet of the whole marriage equality issue that causes me anxiety. If two people of the same gender want to have a formal declaration of vows to create a union in order to control property issues, etc. after the death of one of the partners, I'm fine with that. What I don't want is, as one studying for the ministry, is to be put in a legal context where I have to bless such a union or be brought up on civil and/or ecclesiastical charges.

That's why I would disassociate "marriage" from government entirely and make government's role purely the legal, contractual association of persons in a domestic partnership. I'd separate the religious and legal aspects so that the government would never have cause to require religions to recognize them.

It's not that hard to do--Catholics are already halfway there: They already don't recognize half the marriages in America.

 

[JP1]

That's why I would disassociate "marriage" from government entirely and make government's role purely the legal, contractual association of persons in a domestic partnership. I'd separate the religious and legal aspects so that the government would never have cause to require religions to recognize them.

It's not that hard to do--Catholics are already halfway there: They already don't recognize half the marriages in America.

That's not what is expected to happen if SCOTUS makes gay marriage the law of the land though. The exact opposite, actually.

 

[RDKirk]

That's not what is expected to happen if SCOTUS makes gay marriage the law of the land though. The exact opposite, actually.

Remember that until recently, there was no kind of federal definition of "marriage," and there is no reason for there to be a federal definition of marriage at all. I doubt very much that the SCOTUS will create its own definition of marriage--what it's more likely to do is merely to rule that every state must accept each other's state-certified marriages.

All that would have to happen is that the states drop their own association with "marriage" and pass a law that replaces "marriage" with "domestic partnership contract" wherever it appears. Federal agencies would do the same by a federal law. They can grandfather current "marriage certificates" to be acceptable as "domestic partnership contracts," but they ought to pass additional legislation at the state level to define them more clearly going forward.